Also, if people are wondering where the update is, there's nine votes for this update, so it's going to take a little longer to get out, esp. given I'm doing some big work this week. Hope to get it out before the weekend, though :)
 
Cholera doesn't exist in Europe until the 19th century.
So: Over the next millennia or two...

Step one: Become a regional trading power.
Step two: Get interested in where all these traded goods actually originate from anyways
Step three: Send out explorers and discover India
Step four: Accidentally import cholera to Europe
Step ???: At some point along the line, invent proper sanitation and water treatment.
Step six: Export our knowledge of sanitation to the other cities and nations of Europe, ending the threat of cholera.
Step seven: Be hailed as medical heroes.
 
So: Over the next millennia or two...

Step one: Become a regional trading power.
Step two: Get interested in where all these traded goods actually originate from anyways
Step three: Send out explorers and discover India
Step four: Accidentally import cholera to Europe
Step ???: At some point along the line, invent proper sanitation and water treatment.
Step six: Export our knowledge of sanitation to the other cities and nations of Europe, ending the threat of cholera.
Step seven: Be hailed as medical heroes.
Or just skip step 4.
 
Yes, but that was a conspiracy. Pylonas brought their grievance before the Ekklesia. Granted slaves arent allowed anything to do with the Assembly, beyond perhaps cleaning it, but still.

We are generous to our friends and cruel to our enemies. Pylonas brought the grievances before us as a friend might, and did not attempt to twist our arms but allowed us due consideration of the issues at hand. I dont see how that might make them afraid we would retaliate against them for making such requests of us.
The thing about a man who's generous to his friends and murderous to his enemies is that no matter how much you benefit from his generosity at this moment in time, you can never be truly SURE he will not redefine you as his enemy if you anger him.

One thing that's interesting to know is that the disease load in Europe actually went up considerably over time until the 20th century. It wasn't a constant; people in the 16th century CE had a lot more to contend with than those in the 3rd BCE. Pathogens tended to arrive, and then stick around, especially if they weren't so virulent that they burnt themselves out, or had animal reservoirs.

There are a few nasty bugs we see described in various ancient sources which may have died out in the interval, or could be identified with pathogens known to us, and it's the sort of thing historians of a certain stripe argue about. But they're greatly outnumbered by the number of really nasty diseases which had not arrived yet; smallpox, plague, cholera, typhus, probably measles, and others. Even malaria is probably not yet in the swamps around Rome right now.

This is not an incidental or insignificant thing, especially when you're thinking about how deaths from disease amongst armies seem to be less than you'd expect in Classical and Roman accounts. Not all of it was that the Romans knew how to dig latrine pits in straight lines.
Yeah.

After all, population densities were lower in this era, people traveled long distances less so that a pestilence was more likely to stay regional, and there simply hadn't been as much time to breed new diseases that could take advantage of the somewhat newer phenomenon of human cities.

Mission accomplished.
Leukos:

"Once a day, I beat on this drum to drive away the spirits of the horrible-crap-yourself-to-death disease."

Other Eretrian:

"But there's no such disease!"

Leukos:

"See how well it works?"
 
Really? Please explain! Not all are well read enough to see the butterlies smashing empires.
Last update, we had the chance to establish a trading outpost on the Venetian lagoon. That probably would have butterflied away Venice as we know it. Since we'll likely take it at some point in the future, that's at least one empire smashed.
 
Really? Please explain! Not all are well read enough to see the butterlies smashing empires.

I am not the GM but the whole Sicily thing could easily derail history by quite a lot in some very interesting ways. For example without the strong hegemony of Syracuse to oppose Carthaginian expansion it seems feasible that the whole island will fall to them down the line if they are so inclined. I certainly have a hard time seeing the Sikeliotes or what is left of the Syracusans assemble what has been said to have been forty thousand soldiers under a very good general in response to a Carthaginian invasion (which was the case in history). Or as I alluded to a few times in the past the Sicilian expedition by Athens, aka sending over five thousand of their best men to die on a very risky and honestly unnecessary gamble, is really up in the air with the change in the politics of the island and without that the Peloponnesian War could end very differently or become even more of a never ending slugging match. Questions like what Athens after a few more years of Alkibiades (one of the more overlooked guys in popular greek history) would look like are almost impossible to answer with any certainty though admittedly very fun to think about and play with.

Then there are the military reforms that we have influenced like the increased role of cavalry in Greek armies which could have for example have very interesting effects in a conflict like the clash between Phillip, the father of Alexander, and "Greece" since the tactic probably isn't going to be as effective against a target experienced in that type of warfare as it was in RL. And the same again for the increased role of lighter infantry. Besides the admittedly somewhat unrealistic reenactment of historic battles with different technologies said military techs and tactics would likely filter through to other neighboring states and have unpredictable results.

Then there is the whole Epulian League business itself and the stronger Greek focus on the region and the Adriatic (and the people there) itself which while to some extent had happened in RL but likely not to that degree and which changes local politics a lot. Hard to say the effects there but I would argue that if you wanted you could make a convincing case about it effecting stuff like the Roman expansion/fall of the Etruscans and of course the southern Greek cities. Plus, the successful example of how a different approach to dealing with the local tribes can strengthen a faction by a notable degree will be noticed by other groups.

I could go on and for example speculate what it means that Athens imports a lot of its grain from the west/italy instead the Black Sea since the effects of that range from effects on the Greek colonies and their suppliers there to a possible very drastic change of the strategic importance of the Bosporus for Athens and a lot of other states to stuff like the possibility of a general stronger focus westwards by the greeks and stronger ties between Greece and Italy. (Also another example a possible derailment of the war since it I think it was by blockading/threatening that supply line that Sparta was able to force Athens into a decisive naval engagement that played an important role in ensuring Athens lost the war (though on the other hand it also makes it easier for the Peloponnesian League to threaten the grain supply from the west since it has to be pass their coast instead of the mostly going through the very easy for Athens to dominate Aegean Sea.)

And I am sure you could easily continue this list if you wanted to since the idea that we haven't been able to change the situation/history does in my opinion show little more than the ignorance of its speaker.


Edit:

Cleaned up the post somewhat, writing on a mobile while walking clearly isn't a talent I have.
 
Last edited:
Last update, we had the chance to establish a trading outpost on the Venetian lagoon. That probably would have butterflied away Venice as we know it. Since we'll likely take it at some point in the future, that's at least one empire smashed.

Or, well, just a different founding for what might otherwise have come to have been called Venice. Equally a prosperous trading city sitting at the Mediterranean gateway to northern Europe, getting an earlier head start, might butterfly another empire or major culture into existence, rather than out of it. Or both, really.

At the sort of timescales we're talking about, making accurate predictions is sort of like trying to hit on a dartboard at 2AM towards the end of a party where everyone's forgotten the scoring rules, whilst so out of it that you don't realise the dartboard is actually a rather irritated owl.
 
I feel like the biggest deal right now is that Hanno made contact with the civilizations of the Niger Valley and Carthage is thus reorienting itself to the west and to the sea route that leads it to a land rich in gold and ivory but isolated enough from the broader trade networks of Eurasia that what would be a small fortune in spices, incense and dyed in the Mediterranean can be turned into a vast one along the Niger.

This in turn is likely to inject a whole bunch more gold into the broader Mediterranean economy than there would have been historically. Which is likely to lead to greater amounts of coinage floating around, first allowing even small-scale local transactions to be done in currency rather than in kind, but then leading to inflation once the natural demand for currency is filled and yet there's still more gold being dumped into circulation.
 
I am not the GM but the whole Sicily thing could easily derail history by quite a lot in some very interesting ways. For example without the strong hegemony of Syracuse to oppose Carthaginian expansion it seems feasible that the whole island will fall to them down the line if they are so inclined. I certainly have a hard time seeing the Sikeliotes or Syracusans assemble what has been said to have been forty thousand soldiers under a very good general in response to a Carthaginian invasion (which was the case in history). Or as I alluded to a few times in the past the Sicilian expedition by Athens, aka sending over five thousand of their best men to die on a very risky and honestly unnecessary gamble, is really up in the air and without that the Peloponnesian War could end very differently or become even more of a never ending slugging match. Questions like what Athens after a few more years of Alkibiades (one of the more overlooked guys in popular greek history) will look like are almost impossible to answer with any certainty though admittedly very fun to think about and play with.

Then there are the military reforms that we have influenced like the increased role of cavalry in Greek armies which could have for example have very interesting effects in a conflict like the clash between Phillip, the father of Alexander, and "Greece" since the tactic probably isn't be as effective against a target experienced in that type of warfare. And the same again for the increased role of lighter infantry. Besides the admittedly somewhat unrealistic reenactment of historic battles with different technologies said military techs and tactics would likely filter through to other neighboring states and have unpredictable results.

Then there is the whole Epulian League business itself and the stronger Greek focus on the region and the Adriatic (and the people there) itself which while to some extent had happened in RL but likely not to that degree and which have changes local politics a lot. Hard to say the effects there but I would argue that if you wanted you could make a convincing case about it effecting stuff like the Roman expansion/fall of the Etruscans and of course the southern Greek cities. Plus, the successful example of how a different approach to dealing with the local tribes can strengthen a faction by a notable degree will be noticed by other groups.

I could go on and for example speculate what it means that Athens imports a lot of its grain from the west/italy instead the Black Sea since the effects of that range from effects on the Greek colonies and their suppliers there to a possible very drastic change of the strategic importance of the Bosporus for Athens and a lot of other states to stuff like the possibility of a general stronger focus westwards by the greeks and stronger ties between Greece and Italy. (Also another example a possible derailment of the war since it I think it was by blockading/threatening that supply line that Sparta was able to force Athens into a decisive naval engagement that played an important role in ensuring Athens lost the war (though on the other hand it also makes it easier for the Peloponnesian League to threaten the grain supply from the west since it has to be pass their coast instead of the mostly going through the very easy for Athens to dominate Aegean Sea.)

And I am sure you could easily continue this list if you wanted to since the idea that we haven't been able to change the situation/history does in my opinion show little more than the ignorance of its speaker.


Edit:

Cleaned up the post somewhat, writing on a mobile while walking clearly isn't a talent I have.
I agree to ignorance. Most of your points were unknown to me. Thanks for putting it in perspective.
 
I feel like the biggest deal right now is that Hanno made contact with the civilizations of the Niger Valley and Carthage is thus reorienting itself to the west and to the sea route that leads it to a land rich in gold and ivory but isolated enough from the broader trade networks of Eurasia that what would be a small fortune in spices, incense and dyed in the Mediterranean can be turned into a vast one along the Niger.

This in turn is likely to inject a whole bunch more gold into the broader Mediterranean economy than there would have been historically. Which is likely to lead to greater amounts of coinage floating around, first allowing even small-scale local transactions to be done in currency rather than in kind, but then leading to inflation once the natural demand for currency is filled and yet there's still more gold being dumped into circulation.

I am unsure how much stock I would put in the belief that we have seen so far suggests a massive change to history since we have some hints that a least one similar expedition happened in RL without having had those drastic effects like leading to a total reorientation of the Carthaginian interests. As I said when this first came up unless Carthaginian shipbuilding and naval expertise undergoes drastic changes and/or Carthage heavily invests in colonies along northwestern coast of Africa the journey to Mali and beyond will remain very risky and difficult and I would argue just as likely to end in a massive failure as they are to end in success.
 
Last edited:
No no, its going to be the part where we overthrow the Romans and take over hegemony of all of Italia.
Or Rome Sempai will return history to its original time line.
Alternatively, given how folks were just talking about Eretria's shipping focus, there will be a wedding between Rome and Eretria, uniting their two hegemonies and cultures and thus setting the stage for their union to expand across the Mediterranean.
 
Last update, we had the chance to establish a trading outpost on the Venetian lagoon. That probably would have butterflied away Venice as we know it. Since we'll likely take it at some point in the future, that's at least one empire smashed.
Venice as we know it is more defined by what happens to Venice after the fall of the Western Roman Empire than what happened before it. If Rome evolved more or less historically (rolling over Eretria at some point in the future), and fell more or less as historically (likely precipitated by events from beyond the areas we've notably affected), I suspect you'd still see Venice as historical. There'd just be more interesting ruins and artifacts sunk into the mud of the lagoon or something.

Eretrian theatre is Tartarus for the single person.
On the other hand, the Eretrians themselves will ship you relentlessly, so lonely hearts can take solace!
 
Back
Top